no title

Short takes: Tutoring cheat deserves sentence

About our Editorials

Dispatch editorials express the view of the
Dispatch editorial board, which is made up of the publisher, the president of
The Dispatch, the editor and the editorial-writing staff. As is the traditional newspaper
practice, the editorials are unsigned and intended to be seen as the voice of the newspaper.
Comments and questions should be directed to the
editorial page editor.

Two years after revelations that a federally funded program meant to provide tutoring for poor students was being used as a cash cow by sham organizations that provide little if any instruction, one such opportunist has been brought to justice.

Ashkir Ali, 46, of the North Side, faces a two-year mandatory prison term and up to five additional years after pleading guilty to falsifying invoices and stealing student identities to list on those invoices.

It's an appropriate consequence for theft from the public and deception of parents who thought their children were going to receive help in math and reading.

Ali's wasn't the only company to be accused of cheating the program. An investigation by the state auditor's office into the program continues.

Problems with the Supplemental Educational Services provision of the federal No Child Left Behind law were built in from the start. The program was designed poorly, with virtually no quality controls.

Before long, school districts began hearing complaints of “tutoring sessions” that consisted mostly of playing video games and of sessions taking place in unsafe buildings.

Ali was paid $100,000 by Columbus City Schools. Although it wasn't included in the charges, he also is accused of billing South-Western City Schools for $20,000, without tutoring a single student.

The travesty is a textbook example of what happens when government programs make piles of money available with little planning or oversight.

State should keep focus on innovation

The new $250 million Straight A Fund established by the state was intended to inspire Ohio schools to think big, to come up with new approaches to education. Some schools, though, seem to be approaching it as another way to fund mundane items; officials are right to point out that this isn’t the way this taxpayer money is meant to be spent.

“I think some of (the districts) thought, ‘We can use this to buy buses,” said John Charlton, spokesman for the Ohio Department of Education, referring to at least one proposal that would use Straight A funds to purchase two propane-fueled buses. “That’s not the intention of the program.”

A one-time infusion of government money often is seen as a way to plug a budget hole. But without the requirement to innovate and come up with ways to keep projects going once the initial money runs out, funds could be frittered away with little lasting benefit.

“Some of these applications are going to be weeded out because they are not sustainable,” Charlton told The Dispatch.

Applying such standards is only fair to the taxpayer. It also will be better for Ohio schoolchildren in the long run by promoting ideas that have lasting impact, and should help winnow the large number of applicants vying for grants. In all, 570 applications were submitted, seeking $868 million; in central Ohio alone, 64 districts sent in 95 proposals asking for a combined $126 million.

The Straight A Fund is a good idea, but will only pay off if its original intent is maintained. Charlton is right to remind schools that this is seed money to spur innovation, not maintain the status quo.